Reviews

I am quite puzzled by some of the reviews who claim there is no story or that it's dull or boring. It simply requires us to think and make inferences instead of thinking for us.

One can use the same critique of Tarkovsky's "Stalker" or E. A. Poe's poetry, which will too stands at odds with dopamine-seeking, "entertain me!" camp of movie experiencers.

I would argue that my only critique is that there were one or two parts that were under-developed or even a tad rushed. Mainly these parts lie in what could have been the mother's more poignant justification of accepting this enigmatic artist from her past. It could be explained by vices in her own marriage or what her life had become (if we think of Mrs. Dalloway vs Clarissa; the state of marriage). It could be explained by the inspiration she derives subconsciously from her daughter's exploratory stage, through which she lives vicariously-- and at a 'getaway' place no less where the change of physical location creates altered states of acceptable (or non-acceptable) madness. We see this in nightclubs.

Likewise, it could be explained with equal fervor by her past-- from having been convinced that artists are safe havens by their fleeting chaotic states of being: she had learned from the past that they are perpetually unattached and continually seeking a new muse-- an acceptable norm to toy with, like a smoker who can still accept being around nicotine smoke but will not indulge herself or is in denial of the real dangers and repercussions of being around someone like this.. especially if one has a foot in reality and another in fantasy (like her daughter).

There is a lot more to discuss. This movie is like an imperfect impressionist painting or an English novella. But though it is flawed, it is far better than a lot of things out there.

There are numerous themes and layers in this film, without a doubt, which is why I loved it so much. It is one of those films that you either understand or miss completely.

At the surface, yes, it is about the appreciation of the present and all that, as well as the affinity of like-minded people to, well, like-minded people. But there is more to it.

At the bare bones of this film is the criticism of the pathetic pop-culture, Hollywoodesque intellectually-degraded world in which we reside, where the romantic, deep and profound elements of life have been left behind in some golden age.

We live in a world in which hardly anybody appreciates good art: a world in which hardly anyone on the street these days has read Bulgakov, John Webster, Joyce, Dumas or Cervantes (let alone heard of them) but has watched Hangover II last week. A world in which some people actually believe that films like Batman are in the top 200 films of all time when, really, they aren't even in the top 1,000. There are French films from the 1980s that are ten times better than any superhero film.

We live in a world in which shallowness is perpetuated in the media. A world in which we have completely lost touch with each other, where conversations start with "Hi" and end in "LOL". A world in which films are expected not to be predictable, not to have clichés, to have twists, or to focus on characters certain members of the audience would want to know about. And in such expectations, the point of the film is missed completely.

You think literature is boring? You think art is boring? That simply means -you- are boring.

This is about Gil: a man who is with a woman that, despite being from the same country, is of a completely different culture: today's pop culture. His fiancée would be the kind of woman who would go to a gallery just to say that she went there, to learn "facts" just to say that she is educated, to have books on the shelf to show that she's "well read" when in fact she probably wouldn't read a single one (and if she did she'd never really "get it" anyway), to do "yoga" just because it's "in", and in that mindset would never gain the depth, the romance, the humanity of Gil -- a man who is torn between two worlds, who realizes by far the most important and profound artistic worlds which humanity ought to embrace but fail to do so because of laziness, complete lack of appreciation, and the tragic shallowness surrounding them.

So, to quickly address some of the retarded reviewers that completely missed the point: this film is making fun of people like you, which is perhaps why you do not realize it.

Complaints about "Predictability": ---> Yes, it is predictable, but that is not the point.

Complaints about "Not dwelling deeper into the lives and personalities of the historical characters and just sort of passing them by"

---> That is not a flaw. You're missing the point. If you haven't realized it, the film is not about those historical figures. The film is about Gil's journey.

Complaints about "the detective and how he gets left behind..etc"

That is not a flaw and not superfluous to the message of the film. In fact, it is central to the message. Anyone who says otherwise clearly does not understand the message. Go to the library, start exploring books, start exploring the past... and you will likely end up getting so deeply lost in them, lost in time, that it might become impossible to retrieve you.

The final word: ---------------

Watch it. If you do not like the film: stop and take a year before you watch it again. Read good, classic books and study them. Watch plays. Go the theater. Read authors like Chekhov until you feel at your very core the sorrow of the characters, until you really learn to feel -- not just interpret. Then watch the film again.